- 17 -
lack the proximate relationship to the claimed illness to qualify
as an expense for medical care.
Petitioners contend that the question of whether a direct or
proximate relationship exists depends on the taxpayer's dominant
motivation in incurring the expense. Petitioner relies on the
standard of a proximate relationship used in the context of
determining whether a bad debt is connected to a taxpayer's
business, i.e., what the taxpayer's dominant motivation was in
incurring the debt that resulted in the bad debt, citing United
States v. Generes, 405 U.S. 93 (1972). Petitioner contends that
his dominant motivation in initiating the legal proceedings
against the Portland School District was to secure funding for
Daniel's treatment at Eagle Hill. Accordingly, petitioner
maintains that the legal expenses satisfy the dominant motivation
test set forth in Generes and are therefore proximately related
to Daniel's medical care. Petitioner also argues that the legal
expenses are deductible as medical expenses under the origin of
claim doctrine. Petitioner maintains that he commenced the legal
action to obtain medical care for his son, and thus the origin of
the legal expenses is the treatment of Daniel's disability. The
dominant motivation test and the origin of claim doctrine cited
by petitioner are in some respects similar to the second part of
the Jacobs test, that the expenses would not have been incurred
for nonmedical reasons.
In this case, petitioner might satisfy the second portion of
the Jacobs test that he would not have incurred the legal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011